TRUMP AND UKRAINE: NOT ALL IT SEEMS?

Yesterday was a busy one at the United Nations (UN) in New York. US president Donald Trump's scattergun of comments, as usual, attracted a lot of media attention, comments about the state of the UN, about the Russo-Ukraine war, and about much more besides. On his Truth Social platform, Trump then suggested that Ukraine could get back all the territory it has lost since the war with Russia began. Much of the media has gone along with Ukraine president Volodomyr Zelenskyy's remark that Trump's social media post yesterday represented 'a big shift' in the US president's position. Maybe it does. I see four reasons to doubt that.

No escalation

The day began with Trump's speech at the opening session of the UN General Assembly. After some grumbles about the building's escalator not working and the Teleprompter being stuck, he moaned about how the UN was not living up to its potential. He boasted that he had ended seven wars and that the UN was nowhere in sight. (As noted in a previous blog, the 'seven-wars' claim is dubious.) One could be excused for having thought that Trump was about to announce that he was withdrawing the United States from the UN, not least because his press team had briefed that he was about to deliver a major foreign policy speech, but also because it really was not clear where his venting of grievances about the UN's efficiency was heading.

Trump, without caps lock

Later, as Trump headed into a meeting with Zelenskyy, a reporter asked the president whether he thought NATO should shoot down Russian aircraft entering a member state's airspace. 'Yes, I do,' replied Trump.

The question was prompted by the news that three Russian fighter jets spent 12 minutes in Estonian airspace on 19 September. Ten days earlier about 20 drones crossed into Poland's airspace, followed by drone incursions into Romania and, most recently, Denmark. There has been a clear pattern of boundary-pushing by Russia, with such incursions becoming more frequent and more daring.

Whilst hot-headed responses are seldom beneficial, there is also danger in doing nothing. In my view, it is reasonable to shoot down aircraft in such circumstances. The incursion, not the shooting down, constitutes an escalation of hostilities. When Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet in 2015, against the backdrop of the Syrian civil war, the plane had spent a matter of seconds in Turkish airspace and really only skirted the border (if I recall correctly, it was heading back across the border and not deeper into Turkish airspace when it was brought down). European diplomats said quietly afterwards that they considered it an overreaction by Turkey. On that occasion, the Russian plane crossed at most 2km into Turkish airspace; the recent incursion into Estonia's airspace is far more significant. Similarly, the Russian drones apparently travelled up to 200km across the Polish border during the 9 September incursion.

Given the GPS and advanced navigation systems in the cockpit of a fighter jet, there is little justification for straying across a border or claiming it's inadvertent. If Russia wishes to avoid a plane being shot down, it needs to instruct them not to fly so close to the border. In respect of drones, military analysts suggest it is plausible electronic jamming caused them to veer off course but generally seem unconvinced. So Trump – yesterday at least (for who knows what he might say tomorrow) – gave a nod of approval for shooting down aircraft that violated NATO airspace.

Then, after his General Assembly speech, came his post on Truth Social. He mocked Russia's military power: it is 'a paper tiger', he wrote, which is still fighting a war that should have been won 'in a week'. Those insults will have riled the Kremlin. Trump also acknowledged that Ukraine's strikes against oil depots are hurting Russia's economy and its citizens, who are queueing at petrol stations. Hence a popular view that Trump's position has changed and the 'big shift' Zelenskyy invoked. But beyond the rhetoric, there are several reasons for caution of overinterpreting the US president's comments.

Reasons for doubt

The first reason to doubt this represents a consequential shift is Trump's empty sanctions threats. He said recently that he is ready to whack 'major sanctions' on Russia... if European NATO members stop buying Russian oil. Trump well knows that he has set a condition that will not be met. The likelihood of Turkey, Hungary and Slovakia all stopping purchases of Russian hydrocarbons is vanishingly slim. Turkey is the third largest importer of Russian crude oil globally, and Hungary's relationship with Russia is equally tricky. The threat of sanctions, then, is as toothless a threat as it always has been since Trump's return to the presidency.

A second reason for doubt stems from Trump's aside to a reporter when asked Trump whether he trusted Putin. The US president said he would know 'in about a month'. We have been here over and over: Trump gave Putin 'fifty days' to begin a ceasefire, told the world he needed 'two weeks' to 'find out' about Putin, and only now he has 'got to know' about the war. This is empty rhetoric. Kicking the can down the road.

The third reason is the plausibility of Ukraine getting back all its territory. I admit that I was sceptical about Ukraine's ability to hold back Russian forces after the February 2022 invasion; I was wrong; recovering Crimea even became imaginable. But unless the US supplies more weapons directly to Ukraine it is hard to see it reclaiming the Donbas. Unfortunately for Ukraine, Trump's latest post makes clear that he has no intentions to step up supplies to Ukraine, instead writing: 'We will continue to supply weapons to NATO for NATO to do what they want with them.' Ukraine can achieve the return of its territory 'with the support of the European Union', he says, not mentioning the US.

That, coupled with the last clauses of the social media post, provide the final reason to doubt the US position has really changed all that much. 'I wish both countries well... Good luck to all!' This has the ring of someone about to do nothing and who believes he is taking a neutral stance (see this post for why I do not agree he can be). Gone, even, are the capital letters that pepper many of his posts and convey a certain animated interest. My sense is that his interest in bringing peace to Ukraine is waning; he is merely reaffirming his view it is for Europeans to sort out. One can be excused for thinking, therefore, that his latest comments do not reflect any meaningful change in his administration's position.

Russia's first response was to call Trump 'deeply mistaken' for suggesting that Ukraine could recover its territory. More important will be Russia's diplomatic and battlefield efforts to restore the earlier, more favourable views of Russia that filled Trump's mind. For Ukraine, it will come as a relief to hear Trump sounding some confidence in its cause. That reassurance came across in Zelenskyy's disciplined speech as he took to the General Assembly podium earlier today and delivered his own address. Alas, I am not so sure.

This post is free to read. Please subscribe for full access to the blog.